Goal & Guiding Principles

reviewed

How much of 508 can we use?

508 is not sufficient for the web. That is why we have IWAS and why we are working on HTML Best Practices. We are in a new era focused on web application development (Web 2.0). We also should review and possibly enhance the software & operating system standards, thinking of Macintosh and UNIX applications. We probably will need to take what 508 gives us for hardware. It's helpful that Section 508 already has BuyAccessible.gov to help.

What can we do to operationalize accessibility? What guidance and tools will managers and procurement people need?

We cannot accept 508 standards for telecommunications or kiosks. We need to look at the Telecommunications Act accessibility standards and the Trace Center's guidelines for kiosks.

We need to make sure that we develop standards with which people people can comply.

We also need to think about products and services that are tied together, such as with cell phone devices and cell phone service.

What about non-web software and operating systems? Can we come up with alternatives? If we do come up with alternatives, will be putting ourselves in an impossible position regarding purchases?

What it considered web? Anything displayed in or delivered through a browser (e.g., Java applets, embedded flash, AJAX techniques, etc)

Where do multipurpose devices (e.g., Blackberries) fit in?

Remember that we are required to revisit the standards at least every three years.

Can we invite screen reader manufactures to participate in this discussion? The DHS Ethics Officer has said that software and hardware manufactures may not participate in the workgroups.

Are we going to look at other states and what they are doing? Yes.

Remember to focus on the practical. We are not going to get the/our ideal, but we should focus on what will get the job done.

For anything that does not get clearly addressed in this legislation, the ADA still applies.

We are tasked to develop functional performance criteria and technical standards. The functional performance criteria is our ideal. The technical standards are our way to operationalize the functional performance criteria. If a vendor can meet the functional performance criteria, they do not have to meet all the technical standards. Similarly, if we leave things our of the technical standards, we can fall back on the functional performance criteria.

Authoring tools are an issue also. We need authoring tools that create accessible content by default.

Areas of IWAS that we know we need to expand are scripts and electronic documents.

Push people to use technologies that support accessibility instead of picking a tool and then trying to figure out accessibility.